[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bison-master

From: Akim Demaille
Subject: Re: bison-master
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:54:58 +0200

Le 19 avr. 2012 à 00:23, Ludovic Courtès a écrit :

> Hi Akim,

Hi Ludo, thanks for the answer!

> Akim Demaille <address@hidden> skribis:
>> The "next" branch of Bison is really meant for experimentation,
>> with plenty of git pull -f,
> You mean that the history of that branch gets rewritten?

Yes, it does.  It is its purpose: to use the buildfarm to
first validate a commit before pushing it into main stream

That's a development model I have used elsewhere with great
benefits for everyone, since the main branches are much
less often broken for portability issues, or other reasons
that one would not find on her sole computer.

>> so "git pull --rebase" is not the right means to update a checkout.
> Current Hydra does “git pull --all”, which works under the assumption
> that the repo’s history doesn’t change.

I see.  I don't want to be a problem and ask everyone for
more free efforts, but really, I'd like to emphasize
how beneficial for every project it would be for hydra
to change this command.  Then, every single project can exploit
the buildfarm to validate commits before carving them into
main branches.  There would not need to deploy several
means to update a checkout, as this approach is valid for
both monotonic, and non monotonic branches.

The sequence should be as follows in my humble opinion.

# Remove all the local tags.  That's the safest means
# to remove local copies of tags that have been removed.
# Existing tags will be re-imported by fetch.
# This matters for projects that use for instance
# "git describe" to forge version information.
git tag -l | xargs git tag -d 
git fetch
git checkout -f <branch-name>
git submodule update --init --recursive

Anyway, thanks!


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]